Part 3

In “_Chashitsu_” any thing in the way of display is banished and the utmost refinement of taste is the object aimed at. Every thing was so simplified and rusticated that Mr. Eastlake would look with amazement. There is nothing more simple than to use natural object just as it is; the post at the “_Tokonoma_” is almost invariably a natural form of wood the bark only being removed. The small rafters which are visible from outside of “_Chashitsu_” are simply round sticks about an inch in diameter placed every foot. Sometimes the post of “_Chashitsu_” are so peculiarly finished that the marks of an adze may be noticeable. The face of walls are of sand of beautiful natural tint of bluish green, gray or reddish brown. The furniture and utensile of _Cha-no-yu_ are the simplest things imaginable. This spirit of simplicity and rustication is well exemplified in the so called refined parlor of a modern Japanese house. There is no doubt that _Shoin_ type and _Chashitsu_ construction have given much influence to the modern Japanese houses.

The Greece borrowed the motives of art from Egypt, Assyria, and Phoenicia and composed them so splendidly that it seemed as if they were quite original to the Greeks. Greeks are no doubt an artistic people, they formed an artistic idea from an inartistic source, giving grace of form to a disfigured object and perfect harmony to an inharmonious color; and their architecture unconditionally stands beyond criticism. Romans may perhaps have been more artistic and at the same time more practical than Greeks, but we must acknowledge that without Greeks Roman art could not have existed. Japan, no doubt, acquired her artistic idea from China and Corea, but it is a question whether she was a Greek or a Roman at the Far East. If quietude, reserve, tranquility are the characteristics of Greek art we find them likewise in our domestic architecture, the “_Chashitsu_” and still more in the art of landscape gardening.

I gave _Chashitsu_ and _Cha-no-yu_ as an example of Japanese artistic conception shown everywhere. Here I will give another example of this kind which necessarily associates with them; that is the art of landscape gardening. This also has its origin with certain Corean who invented the art at the time of Suiko, the emperor of the sixth century. But there is not any evidence that such an art had existed in Corea, and it seems to me that the art of miniature landscape gardening is an outcome of the scenic nature of the country. The abundance of hills and waters, rocks and trees gave naturally the rise to the unique scenery in inland as well as the sea coast. The tasteful imitation of this scenery is an involving idea of this accessory art, and at the later period of Tokugawa Shōgun it had taken a systematic form of an art, and peculiarly connected with the _Chashitsu_ architecture, for it has unique, odd, picturesque conception in common with both. Manifold formulas, traditions, and classifications made it so difficult for one to attempt the art that he cannot place even a single stepping stone without knowing the name given, and the meaning accorded to it. It is true that one cannot manage the garden so as to make it look picturesque without knowing how to arrange appropriate objects in appropriate places and the nomenclatures of them, for instance “the moon shade stone”, “the three body stone”, “the twilight woods” etc., make it more interesting and poetical. The idea is quite oriental. A well, a stone basin, a stone post lantern, a flat-top stone, all these necessary elements of Japanese miniature landscape gardening have poetical nomenclature referring to history, religion and tradition. To the bystanders it may merely seem quite an odd, unsymmetrical, picturesque and artful imitation of natural scenery, but profound spiritual meaning which only educated Japanese can understand permeate each of the elements of a garden. It is altogether too practical as European landscape gardening is too scientific. Here I show just one type of gardens which is said to correspond to the Roman type of lettering (Plate 18); Roman, Gothic, Italic etc. are classification of lettering, so Japanese classify the work of landscape gardening according to the style of treatment in referring to the style of lettering.

If the governing art of the twentieth century the “art nouveau” has more or less connection to the fanciful products of Japanese art as some American writer asserts, the amalgamation of accessory art like landscape gardening of Japanese with that of European may succeed in producing some thing which is acceptable to the whim and fantastic thought of modern architects.

If the influence of social habits and manners is the most important in the effects on domestic architecture as one of the writers of “Our Homes” puts it, it will be interesting to compare our houses to those of England whose social organization is more like ours than any other nations in Europe. We have had four classes in society until just immediately before the abolition of the feudal system in 1867 above referred to. England had also four classes in society at the period immediately following the Norman Conquest; they were nobles and small landowners, the clergy, the townfolks, and the agricultural classes. The English nobles correspond to our Daimio and small landowners to _Samurai_, the townfolks to our artisans and merchants, and the agricultural classes to our soil tillers. Our clergy not being enumerated in the social classes they were considered as recluse. English nobles’ castles like the Tower of London, Rochester, Dover etc. are of the same nature as our castles of Nagoya, Kumamoto and others which are scattered all over the country as the seats of Daimio. Sub-feudatories’ houses in England were frequently constructed of wood and in cases of danger they took refuge in their lords’ castles. Their houses rarely contained more than two or three rooms. Our small _Samurai_ houses were probably not larger than those of sub-feudatories, and unquestionably they were made of wood. But fortunately, our smallest _Samurai_ houses were not so wretched as English villeins’ houses which were “commonly rude hovels of mud and thatch, in the one apartment of which the whole family slept. Some times two apartments existed, one of which was allotted to the cow. The floors were either of mud or roughly paved with pebbles”.

The development of English domestic architecture is of the same nature as ours; this is particularly noticed by comparing the idea of “an assize” of 1189 the first “Building Act” of England to our first building ordinance of Shōmu dynasty in 768 A.D. The house in these times in England being mostly built of wood had roofs of straw, reeds, and similar materials, and frequent fires compelled the adoption of a new mode of building. Therefrom, the stone houses covered with thick tiles was one of the requisites of “an assize”. The Imperial decree of 768 A.D. we can hardly call a building act, as it only consists of a few lines concerning the regulation of building an imperial palace and the houses of subjects; for instance “officers and laities who can afford to build their own houses should use tiles to cover roofs, and the walls are to be decorated with red and white earth”. Before this period thatched roofs had mostly been used. It is evident that the fear of a calamity of conflagration was the cause of the forthcoming of the first building acts of both nations. In England the building act having passed revision after revision, the domestic architecture was improved slowly, but steadily keeping pace with other continental nations in Europe. Improvements of domestic architecture partly owe their cause to the command of materials to be used. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, England was not much ahead of us in the use of building materials. Before the assize of 1189 the outside of houses was covered with reeds or rushes, but after the issue plaster was used both outside and inside of the houses and tiles, wooden shingles, and lead were used as roof coverings. Windows, before the thirteenth century, were mere holes having frames on which oiled paper and canvas were stretched until glass was used for the first time in this period.

English houses of the twelfth century were certainly no better than our _Shinden_ type. Let me give an example of what condition the English houses were in in the twelfth century. The following quotation well explains it: “the floor was frequently of earth, and strewn with rushes or straw. When it is considered that refuse from the table was, as a matter of course, thrown on to the floor; that dogs, hawks and other domestic animals lived in the hall, it will scarcely be wondered at that the state of the floor became highly offensive. It is related as an instance of the extreme refinement of Thomas Becket that he ordered his floors to be covered with fresh straw in winter, and in summer with fresh rushes, in order that such of his guests as could not find room at the tables might not get their clothes soiled by sitting on a dirty floor.” This may be an example of an extreme case. Every student of architecture knows that the thirteenth century in England is a zenith of Early English Gothic, why is it that the manor-house and the great landowner’s residence did not come under the influence of art then flourishing in the country? Perhaps they did to a certain extent, but not until as late as the Tudor period. One should not imagine that the splendid painted glass of Westminster Abbey was found everywhere in England. It was a costly luxury in this period; for it was imported from abroad and still more expensive because skilled workmen were rare. It is said that in these days common dwelling houses had glass in the upper part of windows and wooden shutters in the lower part.

It was during the time of Elizabeth’s reign, the sixteenth century, that English houses assumed a character altogether different from that of the middle ages. This is a result of commerce and navigation which has ever since been making England so pre-eminent. “The long galleries, the projecting oriels and bay windows, the broad terraces and stately flights of stairs, mark a new departure in domestic architecture”. Once the lavish use of glass called forth the protest of Lord Bacon, and the use of carpets, except on extraordinary occasions, was considered a mark of extreme luxury and foppishness. This was the state of things in the sixteenth century in England.

At the same time that the beautiful fan-vaulting of Westminster Abbey astonished the world with splendor and delicacy of detail, an order was given by Henry III to make “a certain conduit through which the refuse of the king’s kitchen at Westminster flows into the Thames; which conduit the king ordered to be made on account of the stink of the dirty water which was carried through his halls, which was wont to affect the health of the people frequenting the same hall.” And in the reign of the same sovereign the royal kitchens at Oxford were blown down by a strong wind. If the house of the sovereign was in such a condition in sanitation and construction, it may be inferred that the houses of the lower classes were utterly miserable. I do not wonder that the plagues, pestilences and leprosy of the middle ages checked the increase of population in England. England of the present period, when compared with that of seven hundred years ago, is like another world: and what difference is there between the houses of the present day and those of seven hundred years ago in our land?

When the four classes of society were firmly established in former ages, the plans of the houses were much modified by the vocation, though not much difference in architectural aspect. In the time when domestic manufacturing was in general a predominant feature of trade, and the co-operative system of business was in an undeveloped state, a factory, a store, and a dwelling house were one and the same; a store in front and a factory in the rear of a house was a general feature of the house of a merchant and a mechanic. This kind of house should of course not be treated under the heading of dwelling house proper. We have such houses everywhere in the city at present and cannot expect to exterminate them in the near future. But the advancement of civilization may not allow such varied forms of houses to exist; the rise of land value and increase of lease bring forth the co-operative system of business or compel a man to work on a large scale and thereby drives the good natured hamlet dwellers, gratifying themselves with a beautiful world of their own, out of the field of fierce struggle for existence. No one can afford to indulge in luxury by dwelling at the centre of a city unless he is exceptionally wealthy and has little regard for the quietness of home life. Wonderful power of organs of communication shortens the distance, thereby forming two distinct type of dwelling houses that is the city and the suburban, the real classification of domestic architecture. The flats, apartment or tenement houses which are classed among the city houses are the outgrowth of an advancement of communication organs, and the cottages of the suburbs are peaceful homes of strugglers for life sustenance. Thus the circumstances do not permit the existence of houses which consist of stores in front and factories in the rear. The classification of houses according to the classes of society, as formerly in vogue, has no meaning in this time of enlightenment. The plan of a house necessarily becomes narrower in front in the city dwelling as we often notice in houses at Kioto and Osaka. London and New York and all other Western great cities lay examples before us, but it is curious to note that Tokyo furnishes many examples which are contrary to this fact. Domestic architecture develops in this direction only not in any other way. I do not wonder at the subject much talked of of late about the tax to be levied on gardens belonging to houses within urban district. Fortunately the proposition was not carried into effect; but the searching eyes of wise, inquisitive politicians have already been turned to the virgin soil for resource, it is almost certain that sooner or later they will succeed. The alteration of Japanese houses has been necessitated from even a political stand point. At any rate, as to the laying down of principles and the printing out of methods of carrying out the alteration of the plan, Japanese architects are fully responsible.

Dwelling houses are divided, according to an architectural treatment, into two classes viz. city and suburban houses. The characteristics of the two and the reasons why they should be so classified need no explaining here; only a few illustrations of the two different types of dwelling houses are sufficient to remind us of the truth.

I have pointed out six elements and a few principles which govern the erection of dwelling houses. It is more convenient to treat negatively than to attempt positively the discussion of domestic architecture. In order to protect or fulfill the established principles all hindrances from all sides should be overcome. What I cite in the following has reference only to the Japanese and does not refer at all to the foreigners. It is an appeal made only to the Japanese. I consider prejudice one of the impediments in the way of progress which we have to strive to remove. So long as we are adhering to it no advancement can be expected and improvement of our houses is entirely hopeless. There is in Japan a certain prejudice which amounts even to superstition among weak minded people. They choose a place for water closet according to a superstitious notion. They think that a water closet is the most impure or unholy place, and that the reckless choice of the place for it in a house causes misfortune to the family who occupies the house. They select a place for the well, the entrance etc. according to the same groundless superstition. And they say that thus the national character should be retained through all ages. “The roofs should always be covered with tiles otherwise be thatched or shingled. The shape of roofs should be “_Chidori-hafu_” if not “_Mukuri-hafu_” or “_Kara-hafu_”. A gate should be “_Kabuki-mon_” if not “_Heijiu-mon_”. The wall should be plastered if not finished with “_Sasarako-shitami_”. (thin, wide weatherboarding over which vertical narrow strips are nailed) The posts are invariably square in section, and the ceiling should necessarily be “_Go-tenjō_”. (panelled ceiling) or “_Saobuchi-tenjō_.” (same as “_Sasarako-shitami_” only horizontal, the strips being deeply chamfered) Such and such parts should be so and so; this is the national style of architecture handed down from our forefathers. If we change it at random, how can tell that we are Japanese. This is a house just suited to the people of this peculiar land; we cannot feel comfort or enjoy convenience but for this peculiar house”. There is nothing more absurd than these peculiar ideas. I cited in the introduction that the importance of freedom of design should always be kept in mind and here will not speak further any more than that the overthrowing of those prejudices which lie across the royal road to civilization is always necessary.

I have dwelt so much on the reservedness and seclusion of Japanese dwelling houses. Once again I take up this point and call the attention of all Japanese. Works of art, no matter what they are, should express the sentiment or impression of the artist. The work which has beauty as its object should call forth the sentiment or impression of beauty to the observer or hearer. If the aim and object of any work of art cannot be recognized by others the work is nothing but failure. As the work of domestic architecture is a part of architecture, which has beauty as one of its objects, all possible efforts to beautify a house are quite rational. One might say that our houses being far from gaudiness do not aim to attract attention by showy colors like European houses. Still if attractiveness is an important element to be observed in domestic architecture, our way is one of the methods of treatment which is sufficient to charm admirers. This might be true if a house be built with the aim, among many other aims, to give pleasure to the eye. Japanese houses are uniformly of the same pattern and it seem as though they were not intended to beautify. Well, we might call them beautiful, yet if one get used to one thing continually he will get tired; variety is necessary to give pleasure to the eye.

I must add one more word in regard to the love of nature and simplicity. “In fact, Art”, says Goethe, “is called Art simply because it is not Nature”. A bird, a flower, we use them as materials to give a sensation of pleasure to the eyes, there the fine arts exist. To treat them with taste and refinement needs experience and an educated eye. Japanese domestic architecture, in a word, is, I believe, good in its spirit but leaves a large field to be cultivated in its treatment. If the remark that “Art nouveau” has its source partly in Japanese art is true, why may it not be true that the general adoption of straight lines, which has lately been much preferred by certain European architects in interior decoration, owes its origin to Japan? We furnish a spirit and general idea of treatment to European artists and they well digest them completing in perfect shape, and are kind enough to teach us how to imitate; just as we furnish raw materials of manufacture to Europe and she export them back to this country after working them up into manufactured goods. Most of the imitations of European houses in Japan which have been produced of late like shoots of plants are mostly of the nature of hybrid works and fail in the design; no truth being noticeable in their features; it is altogether too expensive to do such a ginger-bread work with cement and plaster.

My object is not to suggest the imitation of palatial European houses which are beyond every man’s reach: but to propose certain plans, though they may be commonplace character, under the guidance of principles involved in the house planning, which I presume to be practicable in this time of transition: and also I would aim to bring our houses more nearly up to the universal stand.

Our houses are peculiar in many respects when compared to the Western houses as the result of difference in customs, yet there are many things in common to both if names were changed. But the most singular feature is a “_Dozō_” (a treasure house of a half fire-resistance construction) whose necessity is never felt in any foreign house. In all civilized countries valuable articles can be insured for the fear of fire. The system is also provided in this country; then why the necessity of a “_Dozo_”? The Japanese as a nation who observe the reverence of ancestors to the utmost as stated before, the treasures collected by ancestors are carefully kept by their posterity; these may be cloths, objects of fine arts, household utensiles, gold and silver ware, no matter what these are the owner would not give away for any price if the family is in high standing in society. And moreover the custom of avoiding to display these things necessitates a place in which these valuables may be kept. The number of “_Dozo_” is the pride of a family; thus the “_Dozo_” is the outcome of the custom of Japan. The construction of it is shown in the plates. Wood and earth are the chief materials for construction. The thickness of earth put on the wall is nine or ten inches suspended by the lattice work of bamboo of small diameter, say half an inch, tied together in place with the rope made of fibres of the palm tree. The work is exceedingly tedious, for one coat of earth is to be done after another had been dried. Lastly the black or white coating of plaster which is made of mixture of lime paste, (generally the mixture of lime and calcined oyster shells) fibres of hemp, boiled sea weeds, and the pulp of Japanese paper is put on as the finish. If one cannot content or feel safe without a “_Dozo_” or big earthen safe I have no strong reason to object to the use of it. But constant attention to the new materials which are making appearance from time to time in the market is necessary though the new materials and appliances cannot always be said to be exclusively good. And I believe there may be a variety of designs to make it look better to assume an aspect of monumental character.